Ziankovich v. EOIR & Colorado Disciplinary Authorities
Defending the Constitution and the Independence of the Legal Profession
This is a federal civil action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Youras Ziankovich, a New York–licensed attorney, challenging the unconstitutional use of state disciplinary power against federally authorized legal practice.
In 2018, the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC) and its Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) imposed sanctions on Mr. Ziankovich even though he had never been licensed in Colorado and his immigration practice was conducted under federal authority pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(1).
The disciplinary charge involved the handling of client funds — conduct fully compliant with New York State ethics rules, but deemed “unethical” under Colorado’s interpretation. The client herself confirmed that she suffered no harm and attempted to withdraw her complaint, yet the Colorado authorities proceeded and published the sanctions regardless.
Those state sanctions were then transmitted to federal agencies, including the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which automatically imposed reciprocal discipline without independent review or due process.
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to restore constitutional boundaries between state and federal authority, affirm that federally authorized practice cannot be punished by state regulators, and prevent further enforcement of the void Colorado orders.
Why the Case Matters
At stake is more than one lawyer’s license.
This is a test case for federal supremacy and professional independence — questioning whether state regulators may intrude upon areas that Congress has reserved exclusively to federal agencies.
If left unchallenged, such overreach threatens every federally authorized practitioner across the United States and erodes the guarantees of due process and fair notice. The “Matter of Ziankovich” has been already used several times to punish other practitioners.
Core Constitutional Doctrines
- Supremacy Clause — States may not penalize conduct expressly permitted by federal law (Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963)).
- Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — Federal agencies must act lawfully, with reasoned and independent review, not through blind reciprocity.
- First & Fifth Amendments — The right to speak, advocate, and work within one’s federally protected field cannot be chilled by extrajurisdictional punishment.
- Unconstitutional Extraterritorial Regulation — A state may not extend its disciplinary reach beyond its borders or control conduct before federal tribunals.
The Broader Impact
The Supremacy Case highlights a growing problem in the modern legal system: state disciplinary bodies asserting power over activities that occur within exclusive federal spheres such as immigration, tax, patent, and administrative law.
By bringing this action in the nation’s capital, Mr. Ziankovich seeks to reaffirm a principle as old as the Republic: federal law is the supreme law of the land, and those who practice under its authority are entitled to protection from state interference.
Relief Sought
- A declaration that Colorado lacked jurisdiction to discipline federally authorized practice;
- An injunction barring EOIR and other federal entities from relying on or enforcing Colorado’s void orders;
- Recognition that ongoing reciprocal consequences constitute a continuing federal injury requiring judicial relief.
Follow the Case
Court filings, exhibits, and updates will be published on this site as the case proceeds before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.